Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Member You - The Tyranny Of Experts (Part I) - The Limits Of Expertise
With the passage of time, the Email has become the most widely used internet facility and perhaps the most widely mistreated electronic medium as well. The most frequently used technique of email abuse is unquestionably unsolicited emails or spam. Each day we are delivered hundreds of these spam or commercial emails that need to be sorted out, taking our time. They also block the resources of our PC, email clients and eat up precious web space on POP accounts. The only way to get protected from this menace is to install an anti solution spam that will immediately provide you software spam protection and diligently prevent the spam mails from entering your email account.Though it may seem to be a worry of little concern for the end users but if we take a bigger look at it, the results are astonishing. It is approximated by “The European Union's Internal Market Commission” that junk emails cost Internet users ?10 billion per year world over in the year 2001. The California legislature found that spam cost United States organizations alone more than $10 billion in 2004. These costs are calculated on basis of lost productivity, additional equipment, software, and manpower needed to filter spam and maintain the anti solution spam industry. Imagine the cost today!Email marketing is perhaps the commonly used methods of online advertising. Email marketing, which has become a billion dollar industry in itself, is based on the malevolent and unethical practice of retrieving em
Next, expertise, by its very nature is limiting. Experts devote themselves to something specific and narrow. You cannot possibly be an expert of very much. That does not stop some experts from asserting that they can speak authoritatively about whatever they want. But they are actually only experts of a narrow field. Civil society requires that all people - whether they are experts of some narrow thing or not - engage a broad array of issues. I happen to be an expert of a narrow historical field. But I believe passionately that we all ought to be engaged and speak and be heard across the full array of issues that shape our particular worlds. When I strive to engage in public debates on social or political or ideological issues, no one need care what degrees I have. I speak as a person engaged in civil discourse. The broad field of civil society should not be tilted in favor of experts with degrees, titles, offices or narrow expertise.
Most importantly, expertise and degrees do not confer wisdom, ethics, responsibility, morality or philanthropy. Experts are human - just like you. Experts can be proud, elitist and condescending. As noted above, they can resort to ad hominem attacks when challenged. They are often biased. Fundamentally, their expertise does not give them the hidden answers to difficult problems regarding where society ought to place its priorities, or how tax dollars should be spent, or for whom you should vote. Their positions are as likely to be foolish, mud
Rejection is part of a writer's life. You must cope with it. Analyse it and learn from it.The reality is that you may never know why your article has been rejected. Students have asked me why editors or editorial assistants don't give any assessment when the article is returned.Imagine how much work would be generated if a publication received 200 or 300 articles a month! It is a freelance writer's job to get the article as right as possible.If your work is rejected, the editor is not rejecting you, but what you have written at the time. The rejection could be for any number of reasons, for example:The editor has already purchased something on the same subject recentlyThe article didn't exactly fit the editor's needs, at that timeThe whole package was not offered and the editor didn't have access to any images that fitted the article, and of course, the main reason for rejectionThe article wasn't good enough and completely missed the publication's requirements. An editor may also reject articles because of the volume received. He/She sifts through the submissions and puts aside ten possible articles from which only four will be chosen. Your article may be one of the ten rejected despite it being perfectly crafted for that publication.There is something much worse than receiving a rejection skip -- never having written anything.
No, King Richard wanted a horse. But today's public and political warriors need something more modern than horses to run rough-shod over their opponents. They need experts.
Experts are quite useful people to have on retainer, or to be able to pull up from Wikipedia on demand. It's even more useful to be an expert yourself. You can play on your expertise far beyond your field of useful knowledge - just ask Dr. Laura, or Al Gore.
Expertise is extremely valuable, necessary even, in a wide range of human endeavors. Want to build a better microprocessor? Hire yourself a fleet of electrical and computer engineers. Want to pay the taxes you owe and not a penny more? Hire an accountant. Want to understand the ways hegemonic imperial state power has shaped the discourses of post-colonial nations? Hire an assistant professor of non-western English literatures... please?
We need experts to accomplish many of our great goals. To gather, sift and organize new knowledge; to apply basic research in order to engineer new possibilities; to better understand the physical and human worlds we live in. Experts are well trained in narrow specialties that enable them to do original, creative things. Expertise is often accompanied by experience, commitment and dedication.
But there are limits to the utility of experts. Experts can be banal. Experts can be elitist and authoritarian. Experts can be bought. Experts can be highly biased and ideological. Experts can be as foolish and fallible as anyone else. Experts can bludgeon dissent and frighten lay people into obedience. Experts and expertise can be a two-edged sword, particularly in the realm of civil society. We need experts for many things, but we cannot surrender to experts our opportunities - our responsibilities - to engage the world as intelligent, passionate, informed citizens. Indeed, we must break off the tyranny of experts and actively strive to save our corners of the world one idea at a time.
Tyranny of Experts
Experts cultivate authority. Their degrees, their awards, their publications, their experience all demonstrate and elevate their authority. We listen to them and trust them and pay them because they speak authoritatively about things we are not sure of ourselves. But the authority of experts can extend further. Expertise can be a club to bludgeon dissent; it can be a shield against criticism; it can be a muzzle to silence debate and create apathy. In addition, experts are often far from objective. To the contrary they are often highly ideological. Undue deference to experts can lead to a kind of tyranny. Sometimes experts indeed know things we do not. But in cases of civil society, there is little they know that you do not; and in no case ought they to replace your participation in public debate.
Experts hold strong ideological positions. They are not objective, and few would claim to be if you asked them. If an expert asserts objectivity, they are probably using their authority to try to convince you of a powerful piece of ideology. Experts are often ideological precisely because they are experts. Why would you dedicate 3 or 5 or 8 years gaining a doctoral degree on some narrow field or issue if you were not passionate about it to begin with? It often is not for the money, because there are easier ways to make a buck. It is because they care a great deal. They cared when they started their training, and their subsequent research, practice and experience make them more passionately dedicated. But sometimes experts used their expert status to shield their ideology. When the distinguished professor of biophysics stands before you and speaks passionately about the influence of greenhouse gasses on ocean temperatures, remember that she cared deeply about environmentalism long before she began graduate school; and all of her degrees, federal research grants, field studies and teaching seminars have strengthened that ideological resolve. None of that makes her assertions necessarily false; it just recognizes her ideological position.
Experts are also usually terribly stubborn and uncompromising. Science and academia value flexibility, tolerance, and the willingness to alter conclusions upon seeing new data. But experts know a lot of stuff. Their worldviews are complex, sophisticated, and mature. And, as noted above, they are passionate believers in their philosophical and ideological systems. They are unfamiliar with changing their minds, and they are unwilling to bend without much convincing. These people are not sophomores discovering themselves and their world anew. These are doctors who have it figured out. This is why debates over minute disagreements between experts within a field can be so acrimonious.
Experts surround themselves with symbols of authority. When challenged, they sometimes make the mistake of shielding themselves behind expertise or office, rather and engaging in discussion or debate. In our modern egalitarian world, few people understand hierarchy better than experts. The assistant professor challenges the chair or dean at her peril. The lawyer does not attack the judge. If the Senate staff member attacks a Cabinet member, he had better do it with an anonymous leak. Similarly, in the authoritarian space of a classroom, many students learn the very unfortunate lesson that some professors will not abide being challenged or questioned by an undergraduate student. Everyone who has played the card game 'war' knows that a queen beats a deuce. The most natural response to criticism is to question the credentials, publications, experience or office of the critic. An expert's critics are not good scientists; they are outside the scientific consensus; they have not seen the evidence or the classified documents; they do not understand the theory. What then follows is often an incomprehensible, jargon laden defense of their position meant to subdue the poor sophomore who dared cross the doctor's path. In this manner, expertise is used to limit discussion and dissent. It serves to make non-experts insecure, silent, obedient and eventually apathetic.
The Limits of Experts and Expertise
What the plethora of authoritative experts around us conceals is that there are some very important things that experts cannot and should not do. There are some basic limits to expertise. First, experts are often banal or obvious. Did you really need an expert with a federal grant to tell you that children find Rembrandt or Bach beautiful? What would you do without the expert who tells you that lack of sleep makes driving more dangerous? How many different committees need to reshape the food pyramid? - and they still cannot agree on what your mother knew very well: 'Eat your vegetables and then go out and play!' Clearly not all expert conclusions are obvious. But many an expensive lab has been funded to discover and document the obvious. Second and more troubling, experts are often used to substantiate, as truths, claims that are highly contested. Expert says, 'zero tolerance enforcement leads to lower crime rate.' Well you may or not agree with that assertion. And it does not make one bit of difference which experts assert it. It is a contested conclusion. In both cases, whether the expert's conclusions are banal or completely contested, they do not change our view of the world.
Next, expertise, by its very nature is limiting. Experts devote themselves to something specific and narrow. You cannot possibly be an expert of very much. That does not stop some experts from asserting that they can speak authoritatively about whatever they want. But they are actually only experts of a narrow field. Civil society requires that all people - whether they are experts of some narrow thing or not - engage a broad array of issues. I happen to be an expert of a narrow historical field. But I believe passionately that we all ought to be engaged and speak and be heard across the full array of issues that shape our particular worlds. When I strive to engage in public debates on social or political or ideological issues, no one need care what degrees I have. I speak as a person engaged in civil discourse. The broad field of civil society should not be tilted in favor of experts with degrees, titles, offices or narrow expertise.
Most importantly, expertise and degrees do not confer wisdom, ethics, responsibility, morality or philanthropy. Experts are human - just like you. Experts can be proud, elitist and condescending. As noted above, they can resort to ad hominem attacks when challenged. They are often biased. Fundamentally, their expertise does not give them the hidden answers to difficult problems regarding where society ought to place its priorities, or how tax dollars should be spent, or for whom you should vote. Their positions are as likely to be foolish, mudd
Medical billing can follow a very complex and strange process. For those who don’t or haven’t actually worked as doctors, or for insurance companies, the procedures can be quite opaque, but fundamentally it is quite simple.When a patient goes to a medical provider for surgery or to be put on medication, or simply to diagnose conditions the patient has been experiencing, there are certain costs for each service the medical practitioner provides to the patient. The provider records these costs in a form, usually a HCFA, or “hic-fuh,” which can be either electronic or paper. The HCFA is then sent to the patient’s insurance company, or sometimes to a clearinghouse or other middleman that can process the claim. When processing a claim, the insurance company looks at how valid the charges that the provider put on the claim are. Different companies have different systems for determining this, but in general it can be expected that about half the charges the provider put on the claim will be paid by the insurer, and half by the patient. Things like a deductible, co-pay, and coinsurance can have a heavy bearing on how much the insurer is willing to pay. If the patient has coinsurance, for instance, the insurance company is obligated to pay for a certain percentage of all the charges on the medical bill.When the insurer has decided which charges are valid it returns the claim to the medical provider, in either electronic or paper format depending on their customs. Once receive
Tyranny of Experts
Experts cultivate authority. Their degrees, their awards, their publications, their experience all demonstrate and elevate their authority. We listen to them and trust them and pay them because they speak authoritatively about things we are not sure of ourselves. But the authority of experts can extend further. Expertise can be a club to bludgeon dissent; it can be a shield against criticism; it can be a muzzle to silence debate and create apathy. In addition, experts are often far from objective. To the contrary they are often highly ideological. Undue deference to experts can lead to a kind of tyranny. Sometimes experts indeed know things we do not. But in cases of civil society, there is little they know that you do not; and in no case ought they to replace your participation in public debate.
Experts hold strong ideological positions. They are not objective, and few would claim to be if you asked them. If an expert asserts objectivity, they are probably using their authority to try to convince you of a powerful piece of ideology. Experts are often ideological precisely because they are experts. Why would you dedicate 3 or 5 or 8 years gaining a doctoral degree on some narrow field or issue if you were not passionate about it to begin with? It often is not for the money, because there are easier ways to make a buck. It is because they care a great deal. They cared when they started their training, and their subsequent research, practice and experience make them more passionately dedicated. But sometimes experts used their expert status to shield their ideology. When the distinguished professor of biophysics stands before you and speaks passionately about the influence of greenhouse gasses on ocean temperatures, remember that she cared deeply about environmentalism long before she began graduate school; and all of her degrees, federal research grants, field studies and teaching seminars have strengthened that ideological resolve. None of that makes her assertions necessarily false; it just recognizes her ideological position.
Experts are also usually terribly stubborn and uncompromising. Science and academia value flexibility, tolerance, and the willingness to alter conclusions upon seeing new data. But experts know a lot of stuff. Their worldviews are complex, sophisticated, and mature. And, as noted above, they are passionate believers in their philosophical and ideological systems. They are unfamiliar with changing their minds, and they are unwilling to bend without much convincing. These people are not sophomores discovering themselves and their world anew. These are doctors who have it figured out. This is why debates over minute disagreements between experts within a field can be so acrimonious.
Experts surround themselves with symbols of authority. When challenged, they sometimes make the mistake of shielding themselves behind expertise or office, rather and engaging in discussion or debate. In our modern egalitarian world, few people understand hierarchy better than experts. The assistant professor challenges the chair or dean at her peril. The lawyer does not attack the judge. If the Senate staff member attacks a Cabinet member, he had better do it with an anonymous leak. Similarly, in the authoritarian space of a classroom, many students learn the very unfortunate lesson that some professors will not abide being challenged or questioned by an undergraduate student. Everyone who has played the card game 'war' knows that a queen beats a deuce. The most natural response to criticism is to question the credentials, publications, experience or office of the critic. An expert's critics are not good scientists; they are outside the scientific consensus; they have not seen the evidence or the classified documents; they do not understand the theory. What then follows is often an incomprehensible, jargon laden defense of their position meant to subdue the poor sophomore who dared cross the doctor's path. In this manner, expertise is used to limit discussion and dissent. It serves to make non-experts insecure, silent, obedient and eventually apathetic.
The Limits of Experts and Expertise
What the plethora of authoritative experts around us conceals is that there are some very important things that experts cannot and should not do. There are some basic limits to expertise. First, experts are often banal or obvious. Did you really need an expert with a federal grant to tell you that children find Rembrandt or Bach beautiful? What would you do without the expert who tells you that lack of sleep makes driving more dangerous? How many different committees need to reshape the food pyramid? - and they still cannot agree on what your mother knew very well: 'Eat your vegetables and then go out and play!' Clearly not all expert conclusions are obvious. But many an expensive lab has been funded to discover and document the obvious. Second and more troubling, experts are often used to substantiate, as truths, claims that are highly contested. Expert says, 'zero tolerance enforcement leads to lower crime rate.' Well you may or not agree with that assertion. And it does not make one bit of difference which experts assert it. It is a contested conclusion. In both cases, whether the expert's conclusions are banal or completely contested, they do not change our view of the world.
Next, expertise, by its very nature is limiting. Experts devote themselves to something specific and narrow. You cannot possibly be an expert of very much. That does not stop some experts from asserting that they can speak authoritatively about whatever they want. But they are actually only experts of a narrow field. Civil society requires that all people - whether they are experts of some narrow thing or not - engage a broad array of issues. I happen to be an expert of a narrow historical field. But I believe passionately that we all ought to be engaged and speak and be heard across the full array of issues that shape our particular worlds. When I strive to engage in public debates on social or political or ideological issues, no one need care what degrees I have. I speak as a person engaged in civil discourse. The broad field of civil society should not be tilted in favor of experts with degrees, titles, offices or narrow expertise.
Most importantly, expertise and degrees do not confer wisdom, ethics, responsibility, morality or philanthropy. Experts are human - just like you. Experts can be proud, elitist and condescending. As noted above, they can resort to ad hominem attacks when challenged. They are often biased. Fundamentally, their expertise does not give them the hidden answers to difficult problems regarding where society ought to place its priorities, or how tax dollars should be spent, or for whom you should vote. Their positions are as likely to be foolish, mud
Leaders are people who achieve results. Leaders are those whose attitudes and actions lead to positive results. Sending your staff to leadership training may not deliver the goods you're looking for! It helps them build a foundation for achieving the objectives, if they get to implement the knowledge. Some never do.I've spent time with several organizations who send people to fancy schools and programs. When I say fancy, I mean high end fancy, like creepers on walls fancy. Does that mean it will make your team into leaders. Maybe. No guarantees. Executive programs are designed to make schools successful, not your company, or your staff.Leaders and potential leaders need to be challenged to produce results. They need goals or objectives to achieve. They need to show their staff and team members they have what it takes. They don't have to actually do everything to achieve the results but they need to put a plan into action and see it thorough to completion.Leaders produce results!! That's it.Remember how Audey Murphy took the machine gun nest, the rest was history? Yeah? He produced results. His attitude and actions made him successful. Yes he had good training along the way. But his attitude and actions lead him to achieve positive results. Those that realized he had what it takes followed him.Business leadership is exactly the same. You need to set people up to succeed. Developing a process where by team members can set goals a
Experts are also usually terribly stubborn and uncompromising. Science and academia value flexibility, tolerance, and the willingness to alter conclusions upon seeing new data. But experts know a lot of stuff. Their worldviews are complex, sophisticated, and mature. And, as noted above, they are passionate believers in their philosophical and ideological systems. They are unfamiliar with changing their minds, and they are unwilling to bend without much convincing. These people are not sophomores discovering themselves and their world anew. These are doctors who have it figured out. This is why debates over minute disagreements between experts within a field can be so acrimonious.
Experts surround themselves with symbols of authority. When challenged, they sometimes make the mistake of shielding themselves behind expertise or office, rather and engaging in discussion or debate. In our modern egalitarian world, few people understand hierarchy better than experts. The assistant professor challenges the chair or dean at her peril. The lawyer does not attack the judge. If the Senate staff member attacks a Cabinet member, he had better do it with an anonymous leak. Similarly, in the authoritarian space of a classroom, many students learn the very unfortunate lesson that some professors will not abide being challenged or questioned by an undergraduate student. Everyone who has played the card game 'war' knows that a queen beats a deuce. The most natural response to criticism is to question the credentials, publications, experience or office of the critic. An expert's critics are not good scientists; they are outside the scientific consensus; they have not seen the evidence or the classified documents; they do not understand the theory. What then follows is often an incomprehensible, jargon laden defense of their position meant to subdue the poor sophomore who dared cross the doctor's path. In this manner, expertise is used to limit discussion and dissent. It serves to make non-experts insecure, silent, obedient and eventually apathetic.
The Limits of Experts and Expertise
What the plethora of authoritative experts around us conceals is that there are some very important things that experts cannot and should not do. There are some basic limits to expertise. First, experts are often banal or obvious. Did you really need an expert with a federal grant to tell you that children find Rembrandt or Bach beautiful? What would you do without the expert who tells you that lack of sleep makes driving more dangerous? How many different committees need to reshape the food pyramid? - and they still cannot agree on what your mother knew very well: 'Eat your vegetables and then go out and play!' Clearly not all expert conclusions are obvious. But many an expensive lab has been funded to discover and document the obvious. Second and more troubling, experts are often used to substantiate, as truths, claims that are highly contested. Expert says, 'zero tolerance enforcement leads to lower crime rate.' Well you may or not agree with that assertion. And it does not make one bit of difference which experts assert it. It is a contested conclusion. In both cases, whether the expert's conclusions are banal or completely contested, they do not change our view of the world.
Next, expertise, by its very nature is limiting. Experts devote themselves to something specific and narrow. You cannot possibly be an expert of very much. That does not stop some experts from asserting that they can speak authoritatively about whatever they want. But they are actually only experts of a narrow field. Civil society requires that all people - whether they are experts of some narrow thing or not - engage a broad array of issues. I happen to be an expert of a narrow historical field. But I believe passionately that we all ought to be engaged and speak and be heard across the full array of issues that shape our particular worlds. When I strive to engage in public debates on social or political or ideological issues, no one need care what degrees I have. I speak as a person engaged in civil discourse. The broad field of civil society should not be tilted in favor of experts with degrees, titles, offices or narrow expertise.
Most importantly, expertise and degrees do not confer wisdom, ethics, responsibility, morality or philanthropy. Experts are human - just like you. Experts can be proud, elitist and condescending. As noted above, they can resort to ad hominem attacks when challenged. They are often biased. Fundamentally, their expertise does not give them the hidden answers to difficult problems regarding where society ought to place its priorities, or how tax dollars should be spent, or for whom you should vote. Their positions are as likely to be foolish, mud
Legal ownership is not the only criterion for classifying something in accounting terms as an asset; for instance, someone buys an item on hire purchase but does not become the owner of that item until the full purchase price has been paid. Nevertheless, the item is still recorded as an asset together with the corresponding obligation. Similarly, although a lessee never becomes the owner of the item leased, he may record that item as an asset providing that the corresponding obligation is also shown.In an accounting sense 'ownership' usually implies 'legal ownership', but there are exceptions; an interest in a tangible or intangible object, or a right to value, combined with the right of possession and the right of use also constitutes an asset for the interested party.If a person is the owner of the value or economic benefit arising from a specific source, then that source is an asset for the person concerned and he is the economic owner, although he may not be the legal owner. In such case accounting substance should take precedence over legal form in ascertaining the most suitable accounting procedure.The chief function of accounting is to determine profits. The generation of income, however, requires capital investment in order to provide the facilities needed by an enterprise to operate continuously and indefinitely.Historically, expenses that are incurred by not allocated as a cost during a period are deferred costs. From an accounting point
The Limits of Experts and Expertise
What the plethora of authoritative experts around us conceals is that there are some very important things that experts cannot and should not do. There are some basic limits to expertise. First, experts are often banal or obvious. Did you really need an expert with a federal grant to tell you that children find Rembrandt or Bach beautiful? What would you do without the expert who tells you that lack of sleep makes driving more dangerous? How many different committees need to reshape the food pyramid? - and they still cannot agree on what your mother knew very well: 'Eat your vegetables and then go out and play!' Clearly not all expert conclusions are obvious. But many an expensive lab has been funded to discover and document the obvious. Second and more troubling, experts are often used to substantiate, as truths, claims that are highly contested. Expert says, 'zero tolerance enforcement leads to lower crime rate.' Well you may or not agree with that assertion. And it does not make one bit of difference which experts assert it. It is a contested conclusion. In both cases, whether the expert's conclusions are banal or completely contested, they do not change our view of the world.
Next, expertise, by its very nature is limiting. Experts devote themselves to something specific and narrow. You cannot possibly be an expert of very much. That does not stop some experts from asserting that they can speak authoritatively about whatever they want. But they are actually only experts of a narrow field. Civil society requires that all people - whether they are experts of some narrow thing or not - engage a broad array of issues. I happen to be an expert of a narrow historical field. But I believe passionately that we all ought to be engaged and speak and be heard across the full array of issues that shape our particular worlds. When I strive to engage in public debates on social or political or ideological issues, no one need care what degrees I have. I speak as a person engaged in civil discourse. The broad field of civil society should not be tilted in favor of experts with degrees, titles, offices or narrow expertise.
Most importantly, expertise and degrees do not confer wisdom, ethics, responsibility, morality or philanthropy. Experts are human - just like you. Experts can be proud, elitist and condescending. As noted above, they can resort to ad hominem attacks when challenged. They are often biased. Fundamentally, their expertise does not give them the hidden answers to difficult problems regarding where society ought to place its priorities, or how tax dollars should be spent, or for whom you should vote. Their positions are as likely to be foolish, mud
So, you decided to leave the 9 to 5 rat race, that awful commute, or your unappreciative boss, but have quickly become overwhelmed by the many business opportunities available to you. Late night infomercials can give you a clue of what is HOT right now and Real Estate Investing is it!People everywhere are discovering the secrets that afford them to live the lifestyle that you only dreamed of having. Real Estate Investing is the Perfect Business Opportunities out there.Seeking out a sound business opportunity is not destined for failure. Real estate investing has always been a reasonable business opportunity avenue for income creation. History shows that real estate investing is the most profitable business in America. Real Estate Investing has created over 70% of all millionaires.Of all the highly searched terms, you will find that Business Opportunities to be at the top. It is highly searched by stay-at-home moms and entrepreneurs alike who need extra earnings. In return for this tremendous demand for business opportunities, there will also be schemes and strategies that usually cost money rather than make money. Some of these business opportunity schemes are endless financial depths of despair that devours their innocent victims.As long as there are people, there will always be a need for housing and businesses. There is a variety of ways for Real Estate investing. Here are just a few:Construction of residential subdivision. <
Next, expertise, by its very nature is limiting. Experts devote themselves to something specific and narrow. You cannot possibly be an expert of very much. That does not stop some experts from asserting that they can speak authoritatively about whatever they want. But they are actually only experts of a narrow field. Civil society requires that all people - whether they are experts of some narrow thing or not - engage a broad array of issues. I happen to be an expert of a narrow historical field. But I believe passionately that we all ought to be engaged and speak and be heard across the full array of issues that shape our particular worlds. When I strive to engage in public debates on social or political or ideological issues, no one need care what degrees I have. I speak as a person engaged in civil discourse. The broad field of civil society should not be tilted in favor of experts with degrees, titles, offices or narrow expertise.
Most importantly, expertise and degrees do not confer wisdom, ethics, responsibility, morality or philanthropy. Experts are human - just like you. Experts can be proud, elitist and condescending. As noted above, they can resort to ad hominem attacks when challenged. They are often biased. Fundamentally, their expertise does not give them the hidden answers to difficult problems regarding where society ought to place its priorities, or how tax dollars should be spent, or for whom you should vote. Their positions are as likely to be foolish, muddled, irresponsible or selfish as anyone else's. Their ideas, ideals or ideological positions may be compelling, useful, effective, and even visionary. But their status as an expert has no influence on any of that. Within the context of civil society, judge them by quality of their ideas - no more; no less.
There are also some very basic things that experts cannot do. 1 - Experts cannot predict the future. They just can't. An expert who claims to predict the future, whether he or she is a biologist, an economist or a historian, is a charlatan. 2 - Experts cannot direct your principled, moral decisions on public policy issues. You, as a citizen of your community and nation bear that responsibility alone. 3 - Experts cannot and never will form the substance and character of civil society. Functional civil society must be constituted by the broadest possible array of educated, dedicated, engaged, principled, informed citizens. And in the absence of thoroughly educated, dedicated, engaged, principled, informed citizens, you and I will have to do the best we can along with everybody else. The other option is the oligarchic rule of experts and elites, which is the antithesis of civil society. Sadly, the proliferation of experts and the dependence upon them actually damages civil society by spreading apathy, passivity, voluntary disenfranchisement, and silence.
The Emancipation of Civil Society
We live in an expanding universe. Our societies face profound change, serious challenges and unique opportunities. Technological, social, political and economic change offer us innovations as well as disruptions. In order to grasp opportunities as well as manage and solve problems, we need to build stronger communities of engaged citizens. Among a variety of new opportunities, the internet provides us with new spaces to speak and powerful new ways to broadcast our voices. Healthy civil society needs to be emancipated from experts in order to enable the widest possible participation. Civil society, activism, public debate and good governance must be practiced, not lectured or taught.
Complex problems and opportunities require the engagement and commitment of a knowledgeable, responsibility civil society. We must be willing to examine and evaluate many positions. We must be willing to debate, to disagree, and eventually to compromise. Experts are often necessary to this process. But they should not dominate it; and we cannot apathetically surrender the process to experts. A large, diverse, engaged body of citizens is more valuable than any number of experts. Our societies need the combined wisdom, energy, interest and passion of multitudes. We live in an expanding universe. There is room in the expanding universe for each of us to engage and speak and act. But the growing specialization and technicality of the expanding universe can be daunting. Experts can amplify those fears - to everyone's detriment. We cannot allow experts to rule the expanding universe.
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.memberyou.net/article/187304/memberyou-The-Tyranny-Of-Experts-Part-I--The-Limits-Of-Expertise.html">The Tyranny Of Experts (Part I) - The Limits Of Expertise</a>
BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.memberyou.net/article/187304/memberyou-The-Tyranny-Of-Experts-Part-I--The-Limits-Of-Expertise.html]The Tyranny Of Experts (Part I) - The Limits Of Expertise[/url]
Related Articles:
HYIP: No Longer Scam During December, HYIP Change Tactic Now
How To Use Viral Traffic Exchanges To Create Your Own Auto-Pilot Lead Generation System
Nokia 6300 - Sense and Simplicity
Bookmark it:
|